“Qualifying a “bona fide” relationship to enter America, close kinship, education, and pre-established employment are all reasons to meet sufficient muster.”
Despite all the guff and gaffes since our November 2016 election seating President Donald Trump in the White House, immigration enforcement has been one of our nation’s pronounced dilemmas. Internal strife and resistance hampered early seedlings such as sanctuary cities defying ICE agents’ attempts to alleviate the burden illegal immigrants place on America. The problem festered, until now.
With the House of Representatives passing a few immigration-related bills recently, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) temporarily relieving injunctions regarding President Trump’s Muslim nation travel ban, the Trump administration diligently rolled out enforcement efforts to once and for all assert constitutional tenets and ensure national security.
In his June 29 press release, President Trump addressed two bills recently passed by Congress and hailed both milestones as “vital to our public safety and national security.” Come hell or high water, he campaigned on immigration reform, kept molding it, and solidified it with the culmination of “Kate’s Law” and the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.”
Kathryn Steinle was murdered in San Francisco in 2015. Her killer was a five-time deportee who kept slipping back into the country, exacting ill-will at each and every turn. His criminal history is the exact opposite of sainthood, and that was before he mercilessly took Kate Steinle’s life. Given the exact context and circumstance’s contributing to Kate’s death, H.R. 3004 was written and titled “Kate’s Law” and it specifically addresses repeat deportees illegally in our nation. The bona fide malicious behavior of repeat illegal entries, how often each illegal alien re-enters the US, and the level of crimes committed hereupon formulates prison sentencing ranging anywhere from two to 25 years imprisonment.
The validation of how many times one is apprehended re-entering at the border or illegally within US borders speaks to the issue of immigration enforcement by ICE and co-opted relations with local law enforcement authorities in non-sanctuary city jurisdictions. And this last factor brings us to the bitter pill we’ve been swirling about lately: sanctuary cities.
No Sanctuary for Criminals Act
The Trump administration has been sounding the horns regarding self-imposed sanctuary cities whose undermining purpose is to sabotage the federal government’s right, responsibility, and duty to remedy the vast number of illegal aliens upon American soil. Sanctuary cities harboring anyone who has no legal right to be in the United States were forewarned and re-warned about the feds withholding federal funding.
Months lapsed and the situation festered. Elected liberal leaders in many sanctuary cities snubbed their noses, decried deportation efforts, and increasingly sabotaged ICE agents’ enforcement abilities. Well, the time has come and it chronicles fiscal responsibility. H.R. 3003, titled the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” summons sanctuary cities’ cooperation in alleviating illegal immigrants by refraining from harboring practices. In essence, locales must aid the federal government’s efforts to detect, take custody, and deport illegal aliens … or lose federal taxpayer grant monies.
A prime example of how harboring illegal immigrants can go haywire transpired in San Francisco, the sanctuary city in which Kate Steinle was shot and killed by a free-roaming illegal criminal alien. The villain who is responsible for murdering Kate played a major part in the impetus for a law named after her. For her parents we can only hope that, in lieu of bringing back their daughter, Kate’s Law testifies to the convictions America has for its sovereign citizens. And empirical cooperation is the common denominator to achieve successful security.
Federal subsidies formerly paid to “sanctuary” cities across the nation will run a tad dry. Defiance of national security principles has a price, and President Trump is exercising his constitutional authority to retain taxpayer dollars from falling into the hands of city leaders enacting sanctuary city precepts.
From a law enforcement perspective, I can imagine the breaths of fresh air from federal agents, thanks to their elected officials on Capitol Hill putting teeth behind their words. I also suspect the local cops are inhaling/exhaling better, now that new laws are passing political hands to ensure police are not hampered by their respective sanctuary city leaders’ admonitions to do nothing about immigration enforcement.
Other components also currently under consideration by the House are Sarah’s Law and Grant’s Law, both of which align with Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs (R—Mesa), who co-authored the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, also had a hand in Grant’s Law, written to abate the “catch and release” policy rooted under the former presidential administration. Named after Grant Ronnebeck, Representative Biggs described a murderous incident similar to Kate Steinle’s circumstances: “Grant Ronnebeck was gunned down on January 2015 at a convenience store by an illegal immigrant in Mesa, Arizona. The illegal immigrant, a convicted felon, was free on bond while facing deportation. Grant’s Law would have prevented this terrible tragedy.”
Congressman Biggs qualified a crucial point and the impetus of Grant’s Law: “Without the Obama administration’s abject failure to protect innocent American lives, Grant’s murder would not have occurred. I am introducing this law in Grant’s memory to prevent this senseless violence from occurring again.”
Introduced by Congressman David Young (R—Des Moines), H.R. 300 is otherwise known as “Sarah’s Law,” which seeks to “amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the detention of an alien: (1) who was not inspected and admitted to the United States, who held a revoked nonimmigrant visa (or other nonimmigrant admission document), or who is deportable for failing to maintain nonimmigrant status; and (2) who has been charged in the United States with a crime that resulted in the death or serious bodily injury of another person.”
Similar to other citizens victimized by criminal illegal aliens, Sarah Root was murdered in January 2016 on a Nebraska street. The gist of Sarah’s Law is for ICE authorities to have tighter controls. After Sarah’s death, her killer posted bail and is nowhere to be found. Yes, he was somehow permitted freedom and took advantage of that inexplicable fact.
As President Trump extolled on Thursday, June 29, “Now that the House has acted, I urged the Senate to take up these bills, pass them, and send them to my desk.” Sounds like our commander-in-chief’s pen is readied to effect change and weld national security in place. The president continued, “I am calling on all lawmakers to vote for these bills and to save American lives.”
Additionally, President Trump’s Muslim nation travel ban plans have been furthered by the recent SCOTUS ruling. Despite how some may feel about the travel ban, the Supreme Court opened the door for the federal government to enhance the vetting of those seeking to enter America from any of the following six Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen. Qualifying a “bona fide” relationship to enter America, close kinship, education, and pre-established employment are all reasons to meet sufficient muster.
Clarity as to what qualifies as “close kinship” for immigrant entry into the US is being argued since “grandparents” did not make the list, which only includes the parent, spouse (fiancés), child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling of someone already in America. Although a mild travel ban protest, some folks showed up at airports with signs reading “Muslims welcome.”
Representative Biggs punctuated: “We cannot allow tragedies like [these] to happen, and I am pleased that Congress has taken action to bring these lax policies to an end.” The ball is now in the hands of the Senate.